For 5D Wedding Photog Owners - Help requested

I like the 24-105, and have not been hampered by it in dark churches. But I have had to jump to 3200 a couple of times to get a fast enough SS...

Thanks for the feedback man. Mighty cool of the people here to help me make an informed decision

24-70 f/2.8L

You know, I prefer prime lenses for weddings. They are sharper and clearer, IMO, so I like to use my 50/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2.0 as much as possible. For wide angle needs, my trusty Tamron 28-75 does a crystal clear job.

I have shot about 30 weddings with my 5D and the 24-70 f/2.8L has perfect. I wouldn't worry about the shaking. With the great IQ on the higher ISO's with the 5D you can just crank it up to get a fast enough SS.

the last 3 weddings ive done all ive used is my 24-70

I use a 5D for weddings and have the 24-105 F4L. I haven't had any issues and can get away with some lower lighted churches with it as well for close-ups. I plan to get something smaller in the future as well for a larger F-stop.

24-105 or 24-70 they are good .I had 24-105 ...and I used it almost 80% -90% for wedding.

The idea set of zoom lenses for a 5D is the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 which you already have.

jerrybsmith wrote in post #4250982
The idea set of zoom lenses for a 5D is the 16-35, 24-70 and the 70-200 which you already have.

+1 from a 5D user.

I'm considering a 5D for my wedding work, but with all the hubbub over Highlight Tone Priority (HTP), I'm going to wait until either the 5D has it (the 5D Mark II) or a new camera body comes out (I'm sure all future Canons will have this feature).

Sucks big time?? No.... not all. I've been surviving perfectly well with it and have been extremely pleased with it's performance. I've had it a year and a half now have shot about 14,000 images with it.

I shot MF film for 30+ years. When I switched to a dSLR I needed a lens that covered my MF 50, 60, 80 & 150mm lenses. Right about the time of my switch they came out with the 24-105 that does the job of these four lenses for me, without having to switch. I also use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS on a second body.

I always have a flash mounted on the body with the 24-105 and shoot ISO 800 in church. Most of the time I will use the flash in some sort of bounce mode. It would have been nice if this lens came as an f/2.8, but that probably would have added another $500 - 1000 to it along with a pound or more. No, it works just fine.

My last MF film cameras were Hasselblads with Zeiss lenses. I needed a dSLR and glass that wouldn't make me look back. Canon answered most of those needs. They are not perfect, but pretty darn good. The L's are not exactly as sharp as the Zeiss, but then I never had autofocus, zooms or lightweight TTL flashes . No, I'm doing fine with the new rig.

Tony Spires wrote in post #4242225
......so I could theoretically get the 24-105 but only F4? Again this sucks big time. Man, I guess the decision won't really be that easy. Seems they'd have an IS 2.8 for that expensive 5D!! I've read many reviews on the 40D and lots of people don't think it's much better than the rebel xti. Guess it totally depends on the person and what they're using it for but almost everything I have read says it just does not compare to the 5D. So, I really think the 5D is my best route but the lens drama is crazy. Any plans for Canon to come out with another lens 2.8 wide angle telephoto any time soon?

Tony Spires wrote in post #4242225
I've read many reviews on the 40D and lots of people don't think it's much better than the rebel xti. Guess it totally depends on the person and what they're using it for but almost everything I have read says it just does not compare to the 5D. So, I really think the 5D is my best route but the lens drama is crazy. Any plans for Canon to come out with another lens 2.8 wide angle telephoto any time soon?

Oh but the 40D is amazing .

Tony and Metalrain, here's another reason why lack of f/2.8 on the 24-105 doesn't bother be in the least.

The 5D has tremendous high ISO capability. Based upon my past and present wedding work, I feel that ISO 800 with the 5D gives me grain/noise that is no worse than and in many cases BETTER than when I used ASA 400 film. And in addition to that, the 24-105 has IS which really does work as promised, giving you at LEAST the 2-stops that's advertised.

So, you may not have an actual 2.8 aperture but you can achieve very good to excellent shots hand held at 1/25, 1/20 and even 1/15 which will give you that equivalent exposure. Bokeh is another issue but that's not why I bought this lens. Although under the right circumstances I can still achieve some very pleasant effects. So in real world usage this lens with the 5D is a solid performer doing just about everything I expect of it.

Tony Spires wrote in post #4241556
I am about to get a 5D next month and plan on starting a business in wedding photography. I already have the 70-200 and plan on using it for the longer focal lengths and would like to know what everyone thinks is best for the shorter focal lengths but also covers wide angle. I;d like to hear from 5D owners who are out there shooting weddings already. Cost really isn't that important. I just want something comparable to the 17-55 which I;ll no longer be able to use(not with the 5D anyway) Sharp, fast and reliable is what I am looking for but something that goes as wide as the 17-55 on a full frame and as narrow as the 55mm end if this lens exists. Gracias!

I use a 5D and a 20D for weddings.

Just a month ago I bought a 24-105 to replace my 24-85 f3.5-4.5. The 24-85 was and is a good lens, but i was finding it increasingly ironic that 60%+ of my wedding images were being made with my "worst lens". But the real issue was that I needed more focal length for portraits than that lens could give me. That alone would make the 24-70 completely inappropriate for me and my 5D.

When you think about it for awhile f2.8 isn't particularly fast for a lens in this focal length range. You might buy a 24mm f2.8 but would sneer at a 35mm f2.8 and so forth. 2.8's biggest advantage is that Canon cameras seems to have an easier time focusing with that aperture than with slower lenses. In any case I wouldn't consider a 2.8 lens particulalry suited for low light photography. Obviously an f4 is worse, but 2.8 isn't exactly f1.4 either.

I've been extremely pleased with the 24-105. It's sharper than the lens it replaced and the extra focal length has been more than useful. The IS is kind of moot for me. The vast majority of my images are taken from a tripod so IS is redundant, at least most of the time. I certainly would have chosen this lens without IS - if it existed - and if there was some money to be saved. And I would have spent the same money on this lens if it was a 2.8 and had no IS.

But like most things this lens is not the answer for everything. I use a 16-35 f2.8L for many of the church shots, and my 70-200 f2.8L, and the 20D for most of the ceremony shots. The 24-105 will be for bridal portraits, B&G portraits and for groups.

I do bring a 50mm f1.4 with me to weddings and I use it for available light shots of the B&G at the head table. As an aside I've had a Canon UV filter on this lens that flares like no bodies business when there are candles in the shot. I just (last week) replaced it with a B+W filter so hopefully that's fixed.